In Defense of ‘Exorcist II: The Heretic’

Horror fans love a good franchise. Traditionally, these franchises go on and on while not providing much new content in each subsequent film, oftentimes rehashing the same events from the original movie that we loved so much. Some favorites are Halloween, Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and Saw, among others. But once in a blue moon, we get a sequel that not only barely resembles the first film but also really didn’t need to be made into a franchise in the first place. Exorcist II: The Heretic, directed by John Boorman and released in 1977, is a perfect example of just that. Upon its release, it was condemned by moviegoers and critics alike, routinely subjected to “worst movies of all time” lists over the years. But is it really one of the worst movies ever made? I would have to argue no, it is not. While most might disagree with me, I will always stand by that opinion. Hear me out.

The Exorcist (1973) is undoubtedly a classic, from the original book by William Peter Blatty, to the film of the same name directed by William Friedkin. It’s dark, moody, and minimalistic and begs the viewer to question faith and what it means to them. Exorcist II: The Heretic does absolutely none of that. It’s bright, over-the-top, melodramatic, and doesn’t have as much to do with faith itself or even trying to be particularly scary. But what it lacks in scares and realism, it makes up for with a different intriguing question: does great goodness draw evil? Where William Friedkin succeeds in telling a dark, minimalist story about good triumphing over evil, John Boorman succeeds in taking us on a very weird, yet hypnotic, journey about goodness in the world and how the battle between good and evil is never really over. The change in tone can be jarring for people who were expecting more of the same in this sequel, but it doesn’t diminish the value of the film as a whole.

When I was first planning to watch the film, I heard about all the negativity surrounding the film: how it was horrible, boring, dumb, and just a complete waste of time. And yet when I finally watched it, I discovered a strange and fascinating story surrounding Regan MacNeil (played once again by OG star, Linda Blair) coping with the trauma of her exorcism, and beginning to understand that she is one of many with a great gift of goodness in the world that the demon Pazuzu is out to destroy. Then, there’s the story of Father Lamont (Richard Burton) investigating the circumstances surrounding the death of Father Merrin, which brings him to Regan. We are also introduced to a futuristic type of hypnotherapy developed by Dr. Gene Tuskin (Louise Fletcher) where two peoples’ minds can become synchronized and both can see the same past event take place, thereby helping the doctor better understand and be able to treat serious trauma in patients. Yes, it’s a wild concept, but it’s not that far off when you consider The Exorcist had spinning heads, levitation, and objects flying around a room on their own like a hurricane.

This film really shines in two specific areas: cinematography and music. I was taken aback by how beautifully shot the film is, which shows that Boorman had a different kind of vision for his film. As someone always interested in the filmmaking process, I couldn’t help but be struck by the sleek look of the film (thanks to William A. Fraker) and was equally shocked that most people who viewed it didn’t even notice that aspect. Then, there’s the music composed by the late great Ennio Morricone. Most famous for his spaghetti western scores, Morricone lends a tribal and almost otherworldly element to the score to further set it apart from its predecessor, which once again was minimalistic and comprised of a mixture of scary, classical pieces. Being a musician myself, I have always been acutely aware of music in film and how it affects the viewing experience. I absolutely adore Ennio Morricone’s score in this film, and “Regan’s Theme” is still one of my favorite pieces of film music ever. Listen to it, and I challenge anyone to tell me it isn’t a stunning piece.

Should you give The Exorcist II: The Heretic a Second Chance?

Exorcist II is filled with fascinating ideas that make you think about good rather than evil, and while it is essentially an anti-Exorcist film, it does one thing that most other sequels wouldn’t dare – give us something new. We are asked from the very beginning to suspend our disbelief and accept a world of fantasy. And in that realm, everything seems possible. It may not be a perfect movie, yet every time I watch it, I find myself rooting for it to be a success rather than a disappointment. It is truly a sequel I never stray from rewatching.

I had the pleasure of meeting the incredible Louise Fletcher at Monster Mania Con back in 2017, and I had just one thing I felt I needed to ask her, “Was John Boorman a good director?” I think many people have gathered that he was not, since the film has garnered such a strong negative reaction from people ever since. She told me very kindly, “He was a very good director. But he had a different vision for the film than the producers, and they clashed over what it should be in the end.” That was all I needed. I now feel I really understand what happened and why the film exists in the way that it does. It is by no means a bad film, it’s just the result of too many cooks in the kitchen and not letting one visionary create the film they believed in. I’m not here to say Exorcist II is better than The Exorcist, as I happen to know the original is indeed superior. But I am here to say please give it a break. Watch it again with an open mind; you might just surprise yourself.